Top Fifty Players Of 2008

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 5:00 AM EST Comment 42 comments

As a conclusion to the series on the most productive players at each position, I'm going to run down the Top Fifty among all positions. Speaking of those positional articles:

1B | 2B | SS | 3B | DH | LF | CF | RF | CA

As a reminder, I'm using Justin's Stats, which, in my opinion, are the best publicly available total value player ratings. Better than VORP. Better than Win Shares. Significantly better than WARP. The highlights include:

BaseRuns-derived offensive linear weights, with park adjustments.
League-adjusted replacement-level, since AL pitching is stronger than NL pitching.
Proper position adjustments using the CA - SS - 2B/3B/CF - LF/RF - 1B - DH spectrum.
Combined STATS and BIS zone ratings converted to runs to measure fielding.

There are some people who have reservations about the fielding ratings. I agree that the current state of fielding metrics is less than ideal, but let's not pretend that they're even close to worthless. However, if you prefer to use your own fielding ratings (personal judgment, Pinto's PMR, Dewan's +/-, or whatever), Justin's stats are still valuable to you. Focus on the offensive values and the positional adjustments, which combine to form a VORP-like number, only better. Why better? Because they include league-adjustments, don't undervalue walks, and make position adjustments based on the defensive spectrum instead of offensive averages. Then you can add in your fielding rating of choice.

Rather than just post a table of the Top Fifty (well, Top Fifty-Two), I've divided the list into tiers and added some commentary.

The Almost All-Stars

These guys had very good seasons, but probably wouldn't make their league's post-season All-Star team without positional scarcity needs. How many of your friends would be surprised that Christian Guzman and BJ Upton were as valuable as Ichiro Suzuki and Carlos Quentin.

Rank	Player	Off	Pos	Field	Total
52	Alex I Rios	31	-3	7	35
51	Marco Scutaro	11	3	21	35
50	Mike A Aviles	25	4	6	35
49	Milton Bradley	50	-11	-4	36
48	Cristian Guzman	27	6	3	36
47	Torii Hunter	33	2	1	36
46	Andre E Ethier	45	-6	-3	36
45	B.J. Upton	36	2	-2	37
44	Carlos J Quentin	52	-6	-9	37
43	Carlos Pena	44	-10	4	37
42	Joey D Votto	38	-11	10	37
41	Ichiro Suzuki	39	-3	2	38
40	Troy Glaus	39	2	-3	38
39	Randy Winn	33	-6	11	38

Two Big Bats and Eight Good Gloves

Seeing Geovany Soto and Aubrey Huff listed right next to each other is a great example of why defense matters. And seeing Jayson Werth and Shane Victorino three spots away from each other is a great reminder of why the Phillies won the World Series.

Rank	Player	Off	Pos	Field	Total
38	J.J. Hardy	26	7	6	39
37	Shane Victorino	30	2	8	40
36	Ian M Kinsler	45	2	-6	40
35	Russell N Martin	30	11	0	41
34	Jayson Werth	32	-3	12	41
33	Placido Polanco	27	2	12	41
32	Aramis Ramirez	43	2	-4	41
31	Johnny Damon	46	-3	-1	42
30	Aubrey Huff	56	-14	1	42
29	Geovany Soto	31	10	2	43

The Cornerstones

With thirty MLB teams, you can think of the top thirty position players as the guys GMs would pick first in the ultimate sandlot game. Notice that we've reached the point where nearly everyone is above average on both offense and defense.

Rank	Player	Off	Pos	Field	Total
28	Dan C Uggla	41	2	2	45
27	Ryan J Braun	43	-7	9	45
26	Evan Longoria	36	2	8	46
25	Nick Markakis	59	-7	-4	48
24	Jimmy Rollins	30	6	11	48
23	Kevin E Youkilis	54	-8	4	50
22	Brian M McCann	42	10	-1	50
21	Ryan Ludwick	57	-6	-1	51
20	Josh H Hamilton	51	0	0	51
19	Curtis Granderson	47	2	3	51
18	Jose Reyes	51	7	-7	52
17	Adrian Beltre	28	2	24	53
16	Matt T Holliday	52	-6	8	54

The Down-Ballot MVP Picks

If there was an MVP handed out to all of Major League Baseball, these are the guys who would garner some votes from the BBWAA wackos, but wouldn't actually deserve them. Of course, they deserve pretty much all other praise we can heap upon them.

Rank	Player	Off	Pos	Field	Total
15	Brian Giles	49	-7	13	56
14	Manny Ramirez	73	-5	-14	56
13	Brian Roberts	50	2	6	59
12	Joe Mauer	44	10	7	61
11	Dustin L Pedroia	50	2	9	61

The Modern Baseball Idols

Nobody in this year's top ten was a one-year wonder -- all have multiple All-Star caliber seasons under their belts. These are the players we will eventually debate for entry into the Hall of Fame and the players we will tell our children about. Notice everyone to rate this high had positive defensive value, and most were ten runs above average. On the offensive side, the least productive hitters were still five wins better than replacement with the bat.

Rank	Player	Off	Pos	Field	Total
10	Carlos Beltran	53	2	11	66
9	David A Wright	62	3	2	67
8	Alex Rodriguez	60	2	7	69
7	Lance Berkman	68	-11	17	74
6	Mark Teixeira	65	-12	21	74
5	Grady Sizemore	64	2	9	76
4	Chase Utley	53	2	21	76
3	Hanley Ramirez	69	7	3	79
2	Chipper Jones	66	2	14	81

The Tier Before The Albert Pujols Tier

The Albert Pujols Tier

Scroll back up to The Cornerstones Tier. Pick two of those players. Together, they were as valuable as one Albert Pujols. To think that he might not win the BBWAA's MVP award and that he didn't win the Hank Aaron award is a travesty. Would Lou Gehrig have received this treatment if he were playing today? A 10 WAR season is worth about $45MM on the current free agent pay scale, by the way.

Rank	Player	Off	Pos	Field	Total
1	Albert Pujols	89	-11	20	98

0 recs | Comment 42 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Am I reading this correctly?

Ryan Braun is rated better defensively(at his particular position) then Longoria? I understand they play different positions, which are rated differently…but when I see Braun with a +9 and Longoria with a +8, then if I’m reading this correctly, it really causes me to question these defensive numbers.

by td32 on Nov 11, 2008 9:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Easier to play left than third.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 11, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and if you look at the total defensive numbers, with the positional adjustments Longoria wins +10 to +2

---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://balkingtraditionalism.blogspot.com/

by jhmoore on Nov 11, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So Braun is better at his position then Longo is?

But because of the position difference, Longo is more valuable? I underdstand the concept that 3rd is a more heavily weighted position then LF, but I dont understand how Braun could be rated higher in the “field” metric.

by td32 on Nov 11, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bruan is being compared to other left feilders, Longoria to 3rd basemen

The positional adjustment accounts for there relative value.

by SkipT on Nov 11, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isnt that what the position metric is for?

To even out the position difference? Am I wrong that the field metric is for how well they play the position? If so, then it has Braun as a better player at his position then Longoria is at his position…which I find hard to believe.

by td32 on Nov 11, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i would imagine games played is having an effect here.

these are based upon total production, correct?

by larry on Nov 11, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a fair point

by td32 on Nov 11, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes. production = rate x playing time

I think we’re all a bit surprised at how well Braun rated in left field, even though we knew he’d be a much better fit out there than at third base. Some comments:

A difference of +9 to +8 is hardly significant, even if the fielding metrics were perfect. Our surprised should really be that Braun was in the same ballpark as Longoria, relative to position.
The whole relative to position thing shouldn’t be ignored. Left field is MUCH easier to play than third base. I mean, think about who’s out there, and how good they are. Over a full season, it’s ten runs less valuable/easier to play than third base.
The fielding metrics certainly have a largeish margin of error. Small bumps to both players make it seem like a landslide for Longoria. For example, adding just three runs and subtracting just three runs puts it at a +11 to +6 advantage for Longoria relative to position, or a 15 run advantage on overall defense.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Over a full season, it’s ten runs less valuable/easier to play than third base."

Is this just an arbitrary statement, or has it actually been determined somehow that this is true?

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Nov 11, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Click the "spectrum" link in the bullet points above.

And it might help to click the two links in that post.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

got it

seems like a LOT of assumptions are being made, and then ignored, but maybe I’m just being overly skeptical.

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Nov 11, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Report back after you read through things.

As evidence by all the tidy 5 run gaps between positions, the precision here isn’t amazing. But, well, share what you think. Tango and MGL aren’t guys that tend to make assumptions and not test them.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm familiar with tango and MGL's work

they are both brilliant people who write very good things; I’ve had “the book” on my shelf for a long time and have read it cover to cover more than once. I’m just not sure it is possible to agree or disagree with their position on this one because not enough work is being shown; you as a reader have to assume that a lot of what they say is correct, and I’m from missouri.

Anyway, for now lets assume that their assumptions are correct. Using these numbers, would it be true to say that not only could albert pujols or Mark Teixeira theoretically play SS, but they’d be about (+20 -11 -7 = +2) runs above average defensively there? Do I have my polarity correct on the SS positional adjustment? Am I missing something?

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I believe this is the correct interpretation:

Pujols and Tex are as valuable as shortstops who are +2 run fielders. If their skillsets (range, arm, speed, health, diving ability, hands, etc) are in proportion to that of the average major leaguer, they would be expected to be +2 fielders at shortstop given adequate training time.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pujols needs to start demanding team ownership of any team he signs with.

Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 11, 2008 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

I see him play all the time, and he still astounds.

by spants on Nov 11, 2008 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

It’s not that weird, Dewan’s +/- has Braun at +9 and Longoria at +11 for their positions. Obviously no fielding system is entirely reliable but the data used here is pretty accurate, and pretty close to Dewan.

by gingerbreadmann on Nov 11, 2008 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Braun really has made these kinds of strides defensively

albeit with a position change, and if he ever learns to take more walks, then yikes.
Oh, and Albert Pujols clearly benefits from the energy he absorbs from Earth’s yellow sun. He once gave tips to Chuck Norris about fixing his roundhouse kick timing problems. He’s simply unfair, and luckily he’s unfair for the benefit of my team. If he misses the MVP this year I will never shut up about it.

by mattybobo on Nov 11, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

+1

on the not shutting up about an MVP upset for The Mang.

by spants on Nov 11, 2008 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL at the Mets

3 of the 18 best with 2 in the top 10, and still no playoffs.

Where’s Delgado on this list?

by rglass44 on Nov 11, 2008 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's not very funny

Who's world is it? It's yours.

by BlackOps on Nov 11, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

It’s freaking hilarious.

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found
a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up
that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Nov 11, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Possibly

On some days I feel that way.

Who's world is it? It's yours.

by BlackOps on Nov 12, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Defensive adjustment

Now, I’ve always felt that it was actually better to use the replacement offensive value at each position than a defensive adjustment. The argument in its favor would be that a certain degree of defensive demands makes it that much harder to find a given offensive performance that can handle those demands, which is what the metric measures. But if there happens to be very little offensive talent at any given position at any given time, that would make offense at that position that much more valuable. Justin’s metric might be better for historical comparison, but not for present value, unless I’m missing something.

I will not allow the denigration of the life essence

by GenJackRipper on Nov 11, 2008 12:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Defensive adjustments are better, although I was where you are a year ago.

If all teams suddenly move their good players away from first base to right field, does that make a guy who stays at 1B way more valuable or a guy who was in RF way less valuable? Nope. What determines the value of a position is who can handle it defensively. For 1B, 98% of the population qualifies. For SS, maybe only 20% can handle it without being complete butchers. If teams aren’t efficiently dividing their talent between positions appropriately, that shouldn’t reflect on how valuable a certain player is.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lemme see if I can explain it.

In 1961, center fielders as a group hit .273/.351/.434, compared to .271/.341/.440 for left fielders. Do we think that left fielders are more valuable than center fielders for that year, given the same defensive contribution relative to position? Not at all.

The average defensive left fielder is less valuable than the average defensive center fielder, given the same offensive production, because we know – know! – that the average defensive CFer can go out there and be an above-average defensive left fielder. That doesn’t change simply because this year Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron are all playing center field and are around the offensive peaks.

Or look at it this way. If I’m the manager of the Yankees in 1961, and I’m trying to figure out my outfield going into spring training, I’ve got:

Roger Maris
Mickey Mantle
Yogi Berra

I know that of them, Mantle is my best defensive outfielder. I put Mantle in center field, because that’s where his defense is the most valuable. This is true regardless of what players other teams are fielding, and how well they perform.

But we measure defense relative to average at that position. And by that analysis, we could conclude that Berra and Mantle had equal defensive value – after all, LF and CF hit about the same, right? Maybe Yogi’s defense was actually MORE valuable than Mantle’s – just eyeball the DTs. Berra had a higher Rate2 than Mantle.

But we know that’s not true – Mantle’s defense was better, and that’s why he was playing CF to begin with.

I has a blog. | Ask a sabermagician!

by cwyers on Nov 11, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(And yes, I’m sure I missed some of the finer subtleties of the Yankees outfield situation in 1961 – that’s what I get for eyeballing some B-Ref pages and the DT cards and going from there. The idea is to “put a face” on what could be some rather abstract math, not to get tied to the particulars of Yoggi Berra versus Mickey Mantle.)

I has a blog. | Ask a sabermagician!

by cwyers on Nov 11, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

But there is no continuum of defensive skill. A great SS might make a lousy C. A great C might make a lousy CF. Even 1B requires different skill sets than other positions. With CF and LF, there is a much more of a continuum, so it works better. But in general, it’s easy to imagine a drought of a specific skill, like catching or OF.

I can handle the Math if your disposed to let me in on it.

I will not allow the denigration of the life essence

by GenJackRipper on Nov 11, 2008 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For the math, click on the "spectrum" link in the post. Then click through to the two articles linked to there.

Yes, the LF/CF transition is much smoother than most. But there are still plenty of players who move between other positions. The adjustments aren’t saying every player can transition between two positions as per the adjustments. But since those are the AVERAGE transitions, they show how much more valuable one position is than another. You definitely want to optimized a player’s skill set.

Catchers are a different beast. And there’s next to zero support for their position on the spectrum other than logic and offensive numbers.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work Sky

Now get cracking on the pitchers so we can all argue some more.

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found
a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up
that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Nov 11, 2008 3:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I have a philosophical dilemna with the pitchers.

As in, what should I hold them accountable for? IP is a given (maybe adjusted IP if using some sort of defense-independent stat). But ERA? FIP? xFIP? tRA? tRA*? WPA? I actually think the ideal metric would be some sort of PMR for pitchers, where they get judged on the probabilities of their batted balls, before knowing whether they’re turned into outs or not. With park adjustments, naturally.

By the way, Justin’s deserves most of the hitters’ credit for creating the spreadsheet.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel ya

I am unsure which pitching metric to use. I like FIPRAR but it completely over values players like Javier Vazquez.

by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 11, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But given how many pitchers we're really sure it misses on (say, three?), that's not bad, no?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe a good stat in the interim

would be to use either tRA/FIP and ERA in some sort of averages combination, regressing to one or the other… Maybe the more data we have on a pitcher, the bigger proportion ERA (park adjusted?) takes on relative to tRA?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 11, 2008 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think the ideal metric would be some sort of PMR for pitchers, where they get judged on the probabilities of their batted balls, before knowing whether they’re turned into outs or not.

That sound identical to tRA*.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Nov 13, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

tRA doesn't use any information outside of the eight batted ball classifications.

PMR uses location (vector/slice), batted ball type, speed estimate, etc. to judge the difficulty of every batted ball.

PMR for pitchers isn’t necessarily any better for projecting future performances (although I’m sure you could properly adjust it to be so), but it would provide better results-based analysis.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 13, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if this makes me stupid or not, but I did it anyway.

I looked at Stat Corner’s pRAA, multiplied by 1.28 (which, if I’m not mistaken, is Tom Tango’s estimate for replacement level pitching), and looked at where those pitchers would rank. I didn’t bother witch pitching and gave ties to the pitchers because, well, I’m lazy.

Again, I may be totally off base, but this was easy and kept me busy.

45. Randy Johnson, P, ARI (40 Runs)
38. Javier Vazquez, P, CHW (42 Runs)
36. Derek Lowe, P, LAD (45 Runs)
32. Johan Santana, P, NYM (47 Runs)
26. Dan Haren, P, ARI (50 Runs)
18. Roy Hallady, P, TOR (56 Runs)
17. Brandon Webb, P, ARI (57 Runs)
13. Tim Lincecum, P, SF (61 Runs)
12. Cliff Lee, P, CLE (63 Runs)
9. C.C. Sabathia, P, MIL (67 Runs)

And That Happened: Sports with a Hint of Sarcasm

by philkid3 on Nov 12, 2008 4:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent stuff

That’s as good a methodology as any, I think. Only thing I might think about is adjusting pRAA for league (DH vs. no DH). Or does pRAA do that already?

Pitchers are at a disadvantage if you do it this way, by the way. The hitters who rank high tend to have gotten “lucky”: balls falling for hits is the big one. But using tRA, that luck is removed for pitchers. To be on the same scale, we’d want to regress the position players a bit or use something like PrOPS.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 12, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think pRAA does it because "average" is league average

correct me if I’m wrong, of course

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 12, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What are league average ERAs for the NL and AL, though?

Not very different. The DH makes a difference of about .40 runs per game, all else being equal. NL pitchers are worse than AL pitchers, so comparing them to themselves isn’t really fair to the AL pitchers.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 12, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tango

Wasn’t one of the upshots of Tangos’ long post on calculating WAR that the distribution of talent in leagues was uneven pitching-wise, but even hitting wise, or something? he took that to mean that AL nonpitchers get the bonus, not pitchers themselves. Or something.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 12, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs